How are we not a computer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

So you are saying Quantum Physics is independent of cause and effect? I highly doubt it.

---

It is in the sense that there have been numerous problems presented in comparison to old paradigms of physics (Classical/Newtonian), I'm sure a lot of us already know this. Consciousness/observing plays a very important role to the degree where particles of microscopic level are influenced upon observation, showing that they're unpredictable and inter-dimensional.

Quote:

---

As far as evolution, I am saying that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It has to do with the adaptation of life. Something doesn't have to be part of the initial life cycle to evolve. Why would it?

---

Adaptation is very much part of life processes, regardless. Yes, it doesn't create life, but it describes its growth throughout history very well. Agreeable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

So in other words, everyone else has pronounced me unconscious. But, by definition of being conscious, I would know of my own existence and that I am conscious. If I don't have these thoughts, then I'm not conscious. Reason and logic. Turns out everyone else is wrong. But, surely they have a valid reason for being wrong. Perhaps I'm comatose. A brain scan indicates little mental activity. They have no reason to believe I'm still conscious, or even thinking at all for that matter.

Now, I could pick up a rock and look at it, and conclude within a very reasonable degree of certainty that it is not conscious. Consciousness and abstract thought are generally testable behaviors. It is not something found in so-called lesser life forms. A rock is not alive to begin with. Why should I believe it to be conscious? Now, I could be wrong. I could also be dreaming all this up, and wake up in the next five minutes. Welcome back to the pastry in Antarctica scenario. I admit I could be wrong. I don't think so, but I could be.

---

What I'm saying is that subjectivity is not dependent on such externalized things (thoughts/concepts), and you shouldn't have to say that it is dependent on them either. Thoughts don't necessarily indicate consciousness. The fact that you are aware obviously is not affected by your thoughts, behaviors or any other events in the world. The reason why they are associated so often is because 'thinking' is what conscious beings do, which is fair enough, but this is actually not full proof of consciousness, and nobody will ever get full proof except by their own inner investigation.

I find it troubling to believe the vast possibility of mind's potential comparable to the limitations of a computer program. Purely in terms of possible connections in our neural network, compared to a man-made closed system, like a computer program, the difference is discernible by a large order of magnitude.

Quote:

---

al·go·rithm (lg-rm)
n.
A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

---

I am often reminded of Descartes when thinking about ideas like this, more specifically, solipsism [cogito ergo sum].

Quote:

---

Denial of materialistic existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism. Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds. Since qualia, or personal experiences, are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy...

...Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

What I'm saying is that subjectivity is not dependent on such externalized things (thoughts/concepts), and you shouldn't have to say that it is dependent on them either. Thoughts don't necessarily indicate consciousness. The fact that you are aware obviously is not affected by your thoughts, behaviors or any other events in the world. The reason why they are associated so often is because 'thinking' is what conscious beings do, which is fair enough, but this is actually not full proof of consciousness, and nobody will ever get full proof except by their own inner investigation.

---

I'm awake because neurons in my brain are firing. I'm thinking at some level, even if I'm not aware of it. The brain stem and hypothalamus are regulating my bodily behaviors so I don't die. The sub-c is constantly bustling with activity I don't know about. On some level, I still am thinking. If I want to discover that I'm conscious, I must first think on the matter. Now, the main definition of "conscious" is "Mentally perceptive or alert; awake." By this definition, the act of sleeping makes me unconscious. The second definition is: "Capable of thought, will, or perception." Now that is something a bit more relative to what you're saying. Capable of THOUGHT, WILL, and PERCEPTION. All things derived from the brain. And by this definition, there is more to consciousness than just being "aware." It is the ability to process that awareness into a set of testable thoughts.

Now, the way humans work is that we make observations about the world and draw conclusions based on said observations. Unless we make start making things up and clinging to them as absolute truth without evidence, but that isn't very logical now, is it? I can observe consciousness. I experience it all the time. I can look at almost everyone else on the planet with stories nearly identical to mine. From all this, I can make a reasonable conclusion that I, and other humans, are conscious beings. I may then go on to devise tests and experiments designed to test whether or not something is conscious or not. I can test a dog or a cat or a lab mouse, and find that they don't exhibit consciousness. And then I may test monkeys, our near ancestors, and find they are conscious, at least on some level. Based on these observations, and others, I may look at the differences in brain size, structure, and function, and come to the very reasonable conclusion that consciousness is derived from the brain. What I cannot logically do is look at these results and dismiss them as pure coincidence, then leap to the conclusion that consciousness is derived from some great cosmic entity or some form of unobserved soul. Now, it could be. The possibility is there. But quite frankly, the odds are so infinitely small that it isn't worth serious consideration, yet alone embracing it as truth. Too many variables, too many unanswered questions. It just isn't feasible.

Mario, I'm not asking you to prove something, and what may seem strange is the understanding that I'm not trying to 'prove' something to you either, because I can't do that. And I'm not trying to convert people for the sake of it. If I was talking about something specific and objective, my responsibility would be to provide reasoning and logical backup. But I can't prove all this to you because it's not distinguishable on an intellectual level. It doesn't arise from reasoning alone or even "making things up and clinging to them". I just wanted to go over a critical perspective, but unless you want to ask something that may be relevant to the thread, I really shouldn't post anything more here.